UPM student replies to Dr Mahathir

Below is a UPM student Muhammed Daniel's reply to Dr Mahathir's blog posting on nuclear as alternative source of power production. See this.

Dr Mahathir,
As a student studying physics at UPM who grew up to admire your Vision 2020, I am very disappointed that such a good leader for Malaysia and developing countries has swallowed the unscientific anti-nuclear propaganda pushed by the green environmental movement. I have become convinced for some time that a Nuclear Malaysia is the way to achieve vision 2020 and beyond. However, I could not see a clear way forward. Last week I attended a public lecture at UKM by one of the founders of South Korea‘s peaceful nuclear program, Professor Dr Jong H. Kim. I came away from the talk convinced that South Korea’s 50 yeary peaceful nuclear program is the very best example for Malaysia to follow.
According to Prof Kim, “In the 1950’s we were a devastated and torn nation, we were destroyed by the war between North and South Korea.” Today, Korea is the 13th largest economy in the world, 6th biggest nuclear power producer in the world with $20 000 US per capita income. Not bad for a country who came 177th after the war in terms of economic power. In 56 years, they’ve not only managed to rise from the ashes of war but became a major player in the world economy.
How did they do it? Was it through efficient policy making? Help from the super-powers after the war perhaps? The key, according to Prof Jong was nuclear power.
This was due to the fact that economic growth is directly proportional to nuclear development. How so? More electricity enables more factories to be opened and a higher standard of living for the population. This in return generates diverse science and high technology driven sectors coupled with a comfortable living environment for the masses. The world we live in today is highly dependent upon electricity. We only have to imagine what our lives would be without electricity if there was a blackout for only a few hours. Long term security and resource availability is one of this century’s greatest concerns considering oil reserves in Malaysia will deplete within 20 years time (41 years for the world’s oil reserves) while the world’s coal supply is expected to deplete within the next 155 years. For uranium the picture is better with 233 years left if the current trend of world energy consumption persists. We have to remember that used uranium can be enriched to plutonium. If we combine this into the equation nuclear power can last a whole lot longer, up to 2000 years according to reputable estimates.
During the 1970’s, 77% of Korea’s power was from coal. In the 80’s, 10 years after the opening of Korea’s first nuclear power plant, Kori-1, nuclear power amounted to 9% of the total power produced. This figure shot up to 49% of power generated by nuclear in the 1990’s. Now here’s where it gets very interesting. During the 1950’s after the war, Korea’s GDP per capita was a meagre $876 US. Since the beginning of the nuclear power era in Korea during the 70’s, the figure rose to $1597 per capita. In 2007, the GDP was at an astonishing $20 000 per capita! Prof Kim merrily told the astounded audience that this was because Korea had 20 nuclear power plants. Each nuclear power plant essentially contributed to an increase of $1000 US per capita of GDP.
Where does Malaysia fit into all this, I began to wonder? Prof. Jong later shifted his lecture to the Malaysian aspect of it by describing the difference between our GDP and per capita income. Despite the fact Malaysia’s GDP is 1/5 of Korea’s, an interesting point to note is that our per capita income now stands at $15 000 compared to Korea’s $20 000 US. Not too bad, considering we got this far without having nuclear power. Imagine what Malaysia could do if we had nuclear power!
To put the case hands down for nuclear power, Dr Jong showed a final slide comparing the land in square miles required to build various alternative forms of energy. Top of the list for land requirement was biofuel. The land size of corn required to meet energy demands was bigger than Korea itself! Then came hydroelectric power which floods huge areas of land. Next, came generation of power through wind with 40-70 square miles of land required. Fourth place was photovoltaic cells i.e solar power with 40 square miles and last but not least nuclear power with 0.4 square miles of land required. It struck me yet again that the greenies are crazy. From these land use figures, nuclear is by far the most environment friendly source of power.
During the question time I asked how nuclear energy affected the monthly household electricity bill in Korea. Prof Kim said the electricity bill was greatly reduced and stabilised. For example, in 1950 prior to Korea’s nuclear age, their electric power output was 0.33TW hour and later rocketed up to 403 TW hour. A greater than 1000 fold increase in electric power output! Korea is not at the mercy of the oil and gas supply and demand equation because they rely upon heavy elements such as plutonium and uranium. This enabled the price of electricity to be scaled down due to its huge power output.
The important question of nuclear waste was also raised. “Korea initially had problems finding a suitable place for it. In the end we simply asked any regions of Korea which wanted to have the nuclear waste facility to submit their entries. Four areas submitted their entries where the winner went to the area with an 80% resident approval for building the nuclear waste management facility.
The safety aspect of nuclear power raised important questions from the audience. Prof Kim’s response was straightforward, “The technical aspect of it has long gone been solved. It is relatively safe. If it wasn’t safe why would Korea build not only one but 20 nuclear power plants? What’s left for other countries is only the political will power to do so. We in Korea believe that in order to achieve something, we must have a strong will power to do so. We had a strong will considering our nation is now divided into two. It left a great impact on us to improve ourselves. If a plane was to be questioned on every single detail of it’s security, surely it won’t fly. The same goes with nuclear,” he assured us with a smile.
A professor from UPM asked whether the acceptance of nuclear power in the South was because of North Korea’s involvement in using nuclear for military purposes. “Not at all, I’ll show this satellite photo at night showing the difference between the South and North Korea,” he simply said. Indeed the difference was startling. The south was dazzling with countless dots of lights around the country while the North was pitch black with an exception of one dot. Yes, literally ONE dot. That one dot apparently Prof Kim joked belonged to the residential area of its “dictator”. Nevertheless, it clearly states the difference between a country that used nuclear for peaceful purposes and a country that used it for military purposes.
If South Korea can be recognised not only as a major economic power, but a major nuclear power producer isn’t it time we make more of a name for ourselves than merely rubber, palm oil, and the Petronas Twin Towers? Our Asian neighbours have done it. Vision 2020 is only 11 years away. What are we waiting for?

Muhammed Daniel

Dr Mahathir and Nuclear Energy

Former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has his own views on nuclear energy. Here's what he wrote on his blog:

NUCLEAR POWER

1. With the price of oil going up higher and higher, many in this country are thinking about power generation. At one time the Malaysian Government had decided on a four fuel policy for the generation of electric power. We wanted power plants to use either fuel oil, gas, coal or hydro power. We had excluded the use of nuclear power.

2. Why did we reject nuclear power?

3. I am not a nuclear scientist but I believe I know enough of the dangers of using nuclear (fissionable) material.


4. When Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom-bombed, the scientists who invented the bombs thought that the destructive effect would be only from the huge explosion due to fissionable material. So did their victims - the Japanese.

5. As a result the Japanese entered the destroyed cities to carry out rescue work and to clean up.

6. It was only later that they realised that the residual radiation would cause a variety of radiation sickness and diseases. The radiation remained harmful for a long period after explosion. Even today there are people who had entered the bombed area in those days who are dying of a variety of diseases, including cancer, contracted through exposure to radiation from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

7. I think we all know about the Chernobyl disaster in Russia. Despite thousands of tons of concrete being poured into the site, the power plant is still emitting dangerous radiation.

8. Besides this we should know that radioactive material used as fuel for power generation remain radioactive and dangerous to health after the fuel has been exhausted. The waste cannot be disposed anywhere, not by burial in the ground nor dumping in the sea. It can be reprocessed by certain countries only. This requires the dangerous material to be transported in special lead containers and carried by special ships. Most ports do not allow such ships to be berthed at their facilities. Reprocessing means that the nuclear material again becomes active and harmful to health.

9. The fact is that we do not know enough about radioactive nuclear material. Once it is processed it remains a source of danger forever.

10. We have some experience dealing with radioactive material. In Perak we have a site where we had buried by-products of tin mining (amang) which had been processed to become radioactive and which was used to colour television. We had poured tons of cement on the buried material. More than one square mile of the burial site is barred to humans. The site is still radioactive and dangerous.

11. If we have a nuclear plant, besides not being able to get rid of nuclear waste, we may have accidents which can endanger people living even far away because of the material being carried by water (ground water) and wind.

12. I think the authorities should rethink the idea of nuclear power plants. Scientists do not know enough about dealing with nuclear waste. They do not know enough about nuclear accidents and how to deal with them.

13. Until we do, it is far better if Malaysia avoids using nuclear power for electrical generation.

Global trends point to nuclear energy

This is another good letter which appeared in the New Straits Times. It only shows that more and more people are beginning to accept that nuclear is a good source of energy now and in the future.


POWER SOURCES: Global trends point to nuclear energy
By A.M.O. , Kuala Lumpur

2009/05/21


I REFER to the letter from Dr A. Soorian of Seremban ("Safer to rely on renewable energy sources" -- NST, April 16) in response to my earlier call ("Nuclear energy is our best bet" -- NST, April 9) for Malaysia to consider nuclear energy as an alternative source for electricity generation. I agree with Dr Soorian on the need to weigh the pros and cons before embarking on any nuclear power programme in the country.

However, global trends indicate clearly that the popularity of the nuclear alternative is gaining strength. At the end of last year, 16 per cent of the world's energy demand was met by nuclear energy, a percentage contribution that has remained stable since 1986, implying that nuclear power generation has been increasing at the same rate as the total world electricity production for more than two-decades .

Further, nuclear energy is being developed rapidly. About 31 host countries have a total of 438 nuclear power plants, with a total installed capacity of 371 gigawatt electric (GWe).

Another 44 plants with a capacity of 38GWe are under construction in 13 countries, while many other countries are in various stages of evaluating prospective new plants or efforts to develop nuclear power programmes capable of meeting their energy needs.

New plants are being constructed progressively in China, India, Japan, Russia, Finland, France and many more countries.

Even our Asean neighbours, including Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand, have declared officially their intention to develop nuclear power programmes.

We are sure that these countries have studied thoroughly over the years the benefits and drawbacks to their nation's progress and development in embarking on such a huge investment.

The study by the United States National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1990 found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living in the vicinity of 62 major nuclear facilities. This result was expected since the target radiation level around nuclear power plants is very low (~0.05 miliSievert/year) as compared with typical radiation exposure experienced by everyone (~2.4 miliSievert/year world average).

(MiliSievert is the unit of radiation dose. Radiation exposure comes mostly from natural sources or background radiation (e.g. radioactivity in rocks and soil of the earth's crust; radon, a radioactive gas from the earth and present in the air; and cosmic radiation) and also from human activities (e.g. medical x-rays, coal burning and other industrial and research procedures).

This NCI study was the widest of its kind ever conducted and, in fact, it complemented similar studies elsewhere. This differs from the German scientist's study as quoted by Dr Soorian.

Malaysia Perlu Loji Nuklear

Dekan Fakulti Kejuruteraan dan Teknologi Maklumat Universiti Malaysia Sabah Dr. Rosalam Sarbatly berpendapat Malaysia perlukan kepada penggunaan nuklear untuk memastikan industri tenaga di negara kita setanding dengan kemajuan industri tenaga negara-negara maju.

Berikut ialah pandangan beliau yang disiarkan oleh Utusan Malaysia baru-baru ini.

Malaysia harus ada loji tenaga nuklear
KOTA KINABALU 10 Mei – Kerajaan harus mengkaji penggunaan nuklear sebagai sumber penjanaan tenaga baru di negara ini dalam usaha memajukan lagi sektor perindustrian negara.

Dekan Fakulti Kejuruteraan dan Teknologi Maklumat Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Dr. Rosalam Sarbatly berkata, langkah itu penting bagi memastikan peningkatan daya saing industri tempatan serta menarik lebih ramai pelabur asing.

Selain itu katanya, langkah itu juga dapat memastikan industri tenaga di negara ini setanding dengan kemajuan industri tenaga negara-negara maju.

‘‘Kalau kita tidak ada loji tenaga nuklear, kita tidak akan maju dalam industri tenaga dan kita juga akan terencat dalam pembangunan industri.

‘‘Saya jamin selagi tenaga kita mahal dan kita tidak berani meneroka nuklear untuk industri teknologi tinggi, adalah sukar untuk kita melangkah ke depan malah akan ke belakang,” katanya ketika ditemui baru-baru ini.

Don’t fear nuke energy, academic tells Malaysians

This story appeared in The Star on Saturday May 9, 2009

KOTA KINABALU: Malaysians must overcome their averseness towards nuclear energy for the country to generate sufficient and reliable electricity, said Universiti Malaysia Sabah’s Dr Rosalam Sarbatly.

The dean of the school of engineering and information said that cheaper power generated from nuclear energy would enable the nation’s industries to compete with their Western counterparts.
He said the general reluctance among many Asian countries to harness nuclear energy was out of fear over possible accidents in nuclear power generation plants.

“This mentality has been set by the West but if we look at the situation critically, just how many such accidents have occurred?” he asked.

Dr Rosalam said Western nations wanted to spread fear about nuclear energy to enable them to have a competitive edge over developing countries like Malaysia.

His remarks came amid the frequent power blackouts in Sabah caused by a power production shortfall.

More Malaysians supporting nuclear energy for power production

More support for Malaysia going nuclear. This letter appeared in Utusan Malaysia on April 23, 2009:

Bangunkan sumber tenaga nuklear
SAYA amat tertarik dengan surat Pencinta Alam di ruangan ini pada 13 April lalu tentang pentingnya negara kita memikirkan untuk mula beralih kepada teknologi yang lebih canggih iaitu tenaga nuklear, dalam usaha negara meningkatkan pengeluaran tenaga terutamanya tenaga elektrik pada masa hadapan.
Umum mengetahui dan menjangkakan segala apa yang ada di dalam bumi seperti minyak dan gas yang kita ada sekarang lama kelamaan akan kering jika sentiasa disedut sama ada bagi keperluan tempatan atau eksport.
Oleh itu, seperti kata Pencinta Alam, masanya sudah tiba bagi kerajaan mula menimbang kemungkinan beralih kepada teknologi nuklear sebagai sumber tenaga alternatif yang lebih murah, bersih dan berpanjangan.
Adalah tidak masuk akal sekiranya kita menanti segala sumber yang ada hampir kehabisan baru kita mula mencari sumber tenaga yang baru.
Dari aspek ini nampaknya negara sahabat seperti Indonesia, Thailand dan juga Vietnam nampak seperti lebih ke hadapan dan berpandangan jauh berbanding dengan kita.
Indonesia dan Thailand dikatakan telah mengorak langkah kearah penggunaan teknologi nuklear dengan masing-masing bercadang memulakan pembinaan logi nuklear mereka dalam masa terdekat dan akan beroperasi secara komersil sebelum tahun 2020.
Begitu juga Vietnam yang menurut laporan akan memulakan pembinaan pada tahun 2015 dan dijangka mula beroperasi sekitar 2020 juga.
Memandangkan senario ini, negara kita sudah pasti akan jauh ketinggalan dari segi penggunaan tenaga yang lebih murah dan bersih sekiranya kita tidak mula merancang dari sekarang.
Difahamkan sesebuah loji nuklear hanya boleh diwujudkan sekitar 10 hingga 15 tahun selepas perancangan mula dibuat kerana memerlukan kajian yang amat teliti dan menyeluruh.
Saya yakin negara kita mempunyai cukup tenaga pakar yang berpengalaman dan berwibawa untuk melaksanakan tugas tersebut.
Umpamanya Agensi Nuklear Malaysia bukanlah satu badan baru, bahkan telah diwujudkan sejak tahun 1972 lagi dengan nama Centre for Application of Nuclear Malaysia atau CRANE, dan kemudian dikenali pula sebagai Tun Ismail Atomic Research Centre (PUSPATI).
Pada hemat saya kewujudan badan ini tidak mencapai hasrat yang diinginkan kerana kerajaan tidak begitu serius ingin memperkenalkan teknologi nuklear, mungkin kerana bantahan segolongan rakyat.
Saya rasa ada baiknya kita memikirkan semula alternatif ini sebelum masalah seperti kenaikan harga minyak dan lain-lain berlaku lagi yang sudah pasti menjejaskan ekonomi rakyat yang memang sudah tersepit sekarang akibat krisis ekonomi global.
SOKONG PEMBAHARUANShah Alam, Selangor

Going nuclear could be an option

Seems to me there is a growing support for nuclear energy. This appeared in the New Sunday Times today (April 19, 2009)

Going nuclear could be an option

By: Ashraf Abdullah

ASK anyone what makes him or her most proud about being Malaysian, and the answers that come readily to mind include the Meranti trees, the unique animals, the extraordinary vistas of our mountains, forests and beaches.

Yet, on the other hand, for most of our history, we have taken our rich biodiversity for granted -- as if it was so extensive and so vast that no action of ours could damage it. But we now know that many of our rivers have become polluted, and our unique species of flora and fauna are threatened by deforestation.

Every day, the impact of our actions is painfully visible. We know that climate change is causing the ice on the North Pole to melt, even in winter. Due to the rise in sea levels, the island states around the world are sinking, slowly but surely.

I make no apology for saying this, but the truth is the world is now facing the most human-inflicted damage since time immemorial. It took us so long to notice this. It is rather frightening that many scientists are now calling the current era as the Earth's 11th hour.

But all may not be lost. More and more countries and their leaders have now begun to embrace new policies to protect the earth from climate change caused by greenhouse gases. Green technology has suddenly taken pole position in the governments' decision making process.

In Malaysia, a new ministry has been set up to develop green technology. As they do this, the argument on whether nuclear power should replace coal and gas for power production, has surfaced once again.

Supporters of nuclear energy are of the view that it is the perfect alternative for coal and gas because it is much cheaper, more efficient and environment-friendly. On a global scale, nuclear power currently reduces carbon dioxide emissions by some 2.5 billion tonnes per year (relative to the main alternative of coal-fired generation, about two billion tonnes relative to the present fuel mix).

Carbon dioxide accounts for half of the human-contributed portion of the global warming effect of the atmosphere.

Nuclear power has a key role to play in reducing greenhouse gases. Every 22 tonnes of uranium used saves one million tonnes of carbon dioxide relative to coal.

Coal and gas are also depleting faster than one would have imagined five decades ago. The detractors, on the other hand, mostly overcome by paranoia following the unfortunate accidents in Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island, United States, in 1979, argue that nuclear reactors are dangerous and not cost-effective.

This is not so. I think they have turned the other way on the positive attributes of nuclear energy and have been overwhelmed by a false perception of danger. In private, some members of the green movement will acknowledge this, but they know also that their supporters are so adamant that nuclear energy can bring the greatest of hazards that a change of mind would be almost impossible.

The fact is an energy shortage in the next decade is inevitable. "Brownouts", or lowering the operating voltage to prevent a blackout, are already common in some countries, including the United States. In Malaysia, 60 per cent of its power is currently generated with the use of gas, while coal is used to produce another 30 per cent.

Hydroelectric dams throughout the country produce about seven per cent of the country's electricity.The ever increasing thirst for gas and oil will soon see the depletion of these natural resources as well as coal. What happens then? Malaysia's best choice will be nuclear power.

Currently, nuclear power provides over 15 per cent of the world's electricity, almost 24 per cent of electricity in OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, and 34 per cent in the European Union. Its use is increasing.

Uranium is also cheaper and the amount used to produce electricity is very small compared to coal and gas. To produce 1,000MW of electricity for a year, two million tonnes of coal are needed compared with only 30 tonnes of uranium. The risk factor which most so-called pressure groups use as their main argument to stall nuclear energy programmes, is minimal.

The fact is, there have been only two major nuclear accidents known to man. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents are the only two incidents in more than 12,700 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries. Nuclear power plants today are safer.

In Chernobyl, there were 46 casualties, and most of them were firemen. The incident was the result of a radiation leak.However, the incident is not likely to recur as the technology used in Chernobyl has been or is being phased out by Ukraine. This is one of the conditions imposed by the European Union for countries seeking EU membership.

In the Asean region, Thailand and Indonesia have plans to build their own plants. When their nuclear reactors are operational, Malaysia would be exposed to the same risk as if it had its own nuclear reactor.

There is risk in everything we do. We are living in an era where the world has shrunk by jet travel and telephonic communication. Plane crashes can kill hundreds of passengers each time, but do we stop flying and opt for sea travel instead? We can, but it will only be less efficient and greatly hamper productivity.

Then again is sea travel any safer? The Titanic, which according to its manufacturer was "unsinkable", sunk after hitting an iceberg.